AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal:- "1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not holding that the Assessing Officer, Dasuya had no jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s 148 specially, when it was duly intimated to the Assessing Officer, Dasuya and Hoshiarpur that the Assessee is NRE. 2. That the Assessing Officer Dasuya and Hoshiarpur having accepted the contention of the Assessing Officer that they did not have the jurisdiction to frame the assessment and, lateron, transferred the file to the Assessing Officer, DCIT, (International Taxation), Chandigarh, who framed the assessment on the basis of earlier notice as issued u/s 148 by the Assessing Officer at Dasuya and, thus, there was lack of jurisdiction by the Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....twithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the various documentary evidences, as furnished during the course of proceedings before him with regard to the justification of deposits in the bank account of assessee. 8. That the CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the documentary evidences as furnished before him in a summary manner without any cogent material, which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off." 3. The brief facts relating to the issue are that as per the AIR information received by the Income Tax officer, Dasuya there was a substantial depos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....letter dated 15.2.2016 stating therein that as per PAN card, ITO, Dasuya was vested with the jurisdiction over the assessee. The ITO, Dasuya, thereafter, vide letter dated 3.3.2016 again called for information from the assessee regarding the aforesaid bank transactions. In reply to the said letter, the assessee stated that his reply dated 9.2.2016 to be considered in this respect whereby he had given the necessary details. Thereafter, the ITO Dasuya issued a notice dated 30.3.2016 stating that he had reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and thereby he proposed to reopen / re-assess the income of the assessee u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed the reply through his counsel i.e. Advocat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the assessee in USA were also furnished. 4. Considering the aforesaid details, the ITO Dasuya vide letter dated 3.8.2016 transferred the case of the assessee to Additional Director of Income Tax (ADIT) (International Taxation) stating therein that since the assessee was permanent resident of USA and, thus, was having a NRI residential status, hence, the jurisdiction to make assessment of the income of the assessee vested with ADIT (International Taxation). It was further informed that it was a time barred case which was getting time barred on 31.12.2016. Thereafter, the DCIT (International Taxation) NWR, Chandigarh proceeded to make the assessment in question. Since the assessee did not participate in the proceedings, the impugned ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... satisfaction of the ITO, Dasuya instead of himself forming the belief regarding the escapement of income of the assessee. As per the narration of events as discussed above, firstly, in the year 2012, the queries were raised by the ITO Dasuya regarding the aforesaid deposit of amount of Rs. 30.68 lacs in the bank account of the assessee, however, thereafter the ITO Dasuya remained silent for about four years. Thereafter, the ITO Hoshiarpur issued queries vide letter dated 18.2.2016 about the same bank transactions. The assessee vide letter dated 09.02.2016 informed the ITO Hoshiarpur that he was a non-resident Indian, further necessary details like copies of PAN card, passport, Permanent Resident Card etc. were attached with the said let....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manent resident of USA, ITO Dasuya, continued to proceed with the re-assessment and issued notices u/s 148 of the Act. The fact that the assessee was an NRI was very much on the record. Under the circumstances, the ITO Dasuya had no jurisdiction to initiate reopening of the assessment by way of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, thereafter he transferred the case to ADIT (International Taxation) fully convinced that he himself had no jurisdiction to make assessment in the case of the assessee. 7. Admittedly, no notice u/s 148 of the Act by the DCIT (International Taxation), Chandigarh to the assessee was issued. Since the ITO, Dasuya had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, hence, any notice issued by him has no l....